Samsung clearly has no intention of taking the verdict in the Apple lawsuit lying down. With some victories around the world in similar cases, Samsung’s lawyers are adamant they can overturn the charges and are looking at various avenues to point out that the damages awarded are unfair. They also released the following statement:

“Apple’s arguments boiled down to an assertion that everyone who bought a Samsung device would have bought the equivalent product from Apple had the Samsung product not been on the market. But that reasoning ignores any brand loyalty customers might have had to Samsung, or they might be customers of carriers that at the time didn’t offer Apple products. I would say there are quite a few problems with the way Apple calculated damages.”

The first bit obviously stands for a multitude of reasons: not everyone who bought a Samsung device was actually open to an iPhone. While I don’t have numbers any numbers, I believe its reasonable to argue that a significant few bought a Galaxy phone because they wanted Android, not iOS. And the second bit of that statement, regarding Apple’s exclusivity deal with AT&T, seems particularly strong. Until January 8th, 2011, the only network you could get an iPhone on in the US was AT&T. Keeping this in mind, it’s difficult for Apple to claim that the devices Samsung sold to users on other networks hurt their own sales, since the role of the network and it’s coverage plays an important while deciding which device to purchase.

Apple was awarded $57 million for the Samsung Prevail (Boost Mobile) and a little over $53 million for the Samsung Mesmerize (US Cellular), with the iPhone still not available on either network. Additionally, the Samsung Transform cost Samsung about a million, though it was made available on Sprint almost a year before the network’s customers could use an iPhone without switching carriers. Apple was also awarded $3.5 million for the Replenish, which was available on Boost and on Sprint for 4-5 months before the iPhone. In total, we’re talking about $115 million in damages with these devices. I’ll try to update this list once I get my hands on with a complete breakdown of damages per device.

Update: The following device-by-device breakdown of damages was provided on Groklaw. I have cancelled out those devices I believe did not compete with iPhone by being available at a network that did not sell the iPhone ever or was released before the iPhone was announced for the network, thereby not competing with it at the time of sales. I kept the entire Samsung Galaxy Tab damages since a breakdown based on networks was not provided. The total provided by Groklaw is also different since he and a few of his readers believe that the courts have it wrong by a few ten thousands (on the lower side).

Total, removing the damages for the above devices……………..$251,873,686. That is $797,549,854 less than the initial damages.

Update 2: The following excerpt is from the jury instructions that can be found here.

The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty.